why many countries refuse to sign the lunar exploration agreement

Eight countries have signed the Artemis Accords, a series of guidelines surrounding the Artemis program for exploring the moon with crew. The United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Japan, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates and the United States are now all participants in the project, which aims to bring people back to the moon by 2024 and to establish a manned lunar base by 2030.

This may sound like progress. Nations have struggled for several years with the question of how to rule a human settlement on the moon and how to deal with the management of resources. However, some key countries have serious concerns about the agreements and have so far refused to sign them.

Previous attempts to rule space were carried out through carefully negotiated international treaties. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty set out the basic principles for exploring human space – it should be peaceful and benefit all humanity, not just one country. However, the contract contains few details. The 1979 Lunar Accord tried to prevent the commercial exploitation of space resources, but few states have ratified it – the US, China and Russia have not.

Now that the US is pursuing the Artemis program, how will states behave in exploring the moon and using its resources? The signing of the agreements represents a major political attempt to codify the main principles of space law and apply them to the program. For more information on some of the governance issues faced by nations looking to explore the moon, check out the podcast. For the moon and beyond, see link below. https://player.acast.com/5e3bf1111a6e452f6380a7bc/episodes/5e3bf133659d595770f8b907?theme=default&cover=1&latest=1

The agreements are bilateral agreements and not binding instruments of international law. However, by establishing practices in the region, they could have a significant impact on later governance frameworks for human settlements on Mars and beyond.

Natural allies

All seven partners who have agreed to the agreements with the US are natural contributors to the Artemis program and will easily adhere to the established principles. Japan is very interested in doing lunar explorations. Luxembourg has passed special laws for space mining and signed an additional cooperation agreement with the US.

The United Arab Emirates and Australia are both actively seeking collaborative links with the broader space industry. So this is a perfect opportunity for them to build capacity. Italy, the UK and Canada all have ambitions to develop their space industries and will see this as an opportunity for their economies to grow.

The content of the agreements is relatively undisputed. Everywhere reference is made to the existing framework of the Space Treaty, so that these are closely linked to the existing norms of space law. In this respect, the agreements seem to be deliberately designed to assure the countries that this is not an instruction to behave towards a hegemonic power.

There is an explicit statement that mining space resources is in accordance with international law. This follows from the controversial passage of the Space Act 2015, which implements the right to use and trade in space resources into American domestic law. Section 10 (4) of the agreement also commits itself to ongoing discussions in the UN committee on the peaceful uses of outer space about how the legal framework should develop.

The rest of the agreements focus on safety in space operations, transparency and interoperability (which refers to the ability of space systems to work with one another).

Controversial issues

If the substance is reassuring, US promotion of the agreements outside the “normal” channels of international space law – such as the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space – will cause some states to be alarmed. By asking potential collaborators to sign bilateral codes of conduct instead, some nations will see the US as an attempt to enforce their own quasi-legal rules. This could lead the US to use partnership agreements and lucrative financial contracts to strengthen its own dominant leadership position.

Russia has already stated that the Artemis program is too “US-centered” to be signed in its current form. China’s absence is explained by the US Congress’ ban on cooperation with the country. Concern that this is a takeover by the US and its allies is fueled by the lack of African or South American countries among the founding partner states.

Interestingly, Germany, France and India are also missing. These are countries with well-developed space programs that would certainly have benefited from participating in the Artemis project. Your opposition could be due to a preference for the lunar treaty and a desire to see a properly negotiated contract to explore the moon.

The European Space Agency (ESA) as an organization did not sign the agreements either, but a number of ESA member states did. Not surprising. The ambitious US deadline for the project will clash with the lengthy consultation of the 17 member states required for the signing of the ESA as a whole.

Ultimately, the Artemis Accords are revolutionary in the field of space exploration. The use of bilateral agreements that mandate behavioral standards as a condition of participation in a program is a major change in space governance. If Russia and China oppose them, the agreements are sure to meet diplomatic opposition and their existence could provoke contradiction in traditional UN forums.

Questions also remain about the impact of the upcoming US election and the COVID-19 pandemic on the program. We already know that President Trump wants to see astronauts on the moon by 2024. His Democratic rival Joe Biden’s approach is much less clear. It may be less tied to the 2024 deadline and instead seek broader diplomatic consensus on conduct through engagement with the United Nations.

While wider international acceptance may be desirable, the US believes that the lure of the opportunities offered by the Artemis program will bring other partners on board soon enough. Space-active states are now faced with a difficult decision: do not miss to be the first to use the resources of the moon, or accept the price for business and enroll in the Artemis agreements.

Christopher Newman, Professor of Space Law and Policy, Northumbria University, Newcastle

This article is republished by The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.